Leicester Secularist Blog

News and views from Secular Society and its members, with comments on other events of wider interest to secularists. Views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by the society unless this is expressly stated. We also have a quarterly (almost) journal - the Leicester Secularist.

18 September 2018

A young Muslim claimed at a meeting that I attended that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was "racist". We exchanged emails and it turned out that "racism" was being equated with being "eurocentric". My response appears below:-

I don't think our disagreement is as profound as I thought it was
when you asserted the the UDHR is "racist". As with all discussions
words and differences in interpretations as to what they mean can
result in people talking at cross purposes. This is a problem I
encounter when discussing the existence of god(s). You need to
define what you mean by god(s) before you can discuss. For example
when Einstein refers to god, he means a Universe, which has no
intelligence and is totally indifferent to humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
To me racism is discrimination based a persons genetic make up that
they cannot change - "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another,
which often results in discrimination and prejudice
towards people based on their race or ethnicity." to quote wikipedia - although
many (possibly yourself included) have in recent years begun to use
the term to describe many other forms of discrimination.
As with equating secularism with atheism, in my opinion we devalue
the language and make it more difficult to discuss the issues
because of this conflation of meaning. If we mean cultural
imperialism, or tribalism or xenophobia or religious discrimination
then I'd suggest that these are the descriptions we should use.
I'd be the first to accept that "the modern doctrine of Human Rights
is Eurocentric and often inconsiderate of different perspectives".
But that does not make it racist (at least by my definition).

It is not even accepted by all European political philosophies. It
is after all based on asserting the rights of the individual and
limiting the powers of the group or state over the individual. Since
Humanism is based on on the notion of the rational,
autonomous human being, it finds the UDHR an attractive idea,
although as with all human constructs it can no doubt be improved
upon. Communism (which is also an atheist philosophy) does not
accept the idea that the individual should have any protection
from the collective will of the people and emphasises group/class
solidarity. Human rights are also unacceptable to absolute
monarchists, fascists and some people of religion who wish to see
their beliefs imposed across the entire population of the world.

I'd be the first to admit that if we introduce modern
medicines and technology to tribes that have managed to
survive in remote areas, we will undoubtedly destroy their
culture, which saddens me. However do we have a right to say that
certain populations should not have the benefits of modern
medicines/technology because this would change their way of life
and culture? If we did this surely we would be treating them like
animals in a zoo. Intervention may be a form of
imperialism/colonialism, but I'd have difficulty in not advocating
for it.

All cultures evolve over time and change is inevitable.
Unfortunately many people have a "golden conception" of a certain
period in their culture and want to maintain it regardless of
other changes in the world. I think Brexit is very much a symptom
of this.

I watched most of the YouTube video and would agree with much of
the article about Human Rights being Eurocentric, since most of
its history stems from the evolution of thought in Europe and in
particular the English speaking world. As with all human
constructs its history is an amalgam of many things. Some of the
ideas can be traced back to the Magna Carter and the Bill of
Rights. Others to religious ideas evolving from the Enlightenment.
Indeed I would maintain that a Leicestershire man, George Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox
, who founded the Society of Friends (the Quakers) can claim some
credit (or blame :-) ). As with many other religious figures he
had a revelation on Pendle Hill http://www.strecorsoc.org/gfox/ch06.html
. His idea that god dwells in everyone led to Quakers being
amongst the earliest advocates of equality and founders of the
anti-slavery movement. http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_21.html
.

"All four regional documents have some similarities but they
also have their differences. It is interesting to note that the
Draft Arab Charter and the African Charter of Human and Peoples
Rights are not all that radically different from the UDHR. If
one was to convincingly argue that the modern documents of human
rights were Eurocentric in character then I suspect one would
have expected a greater difference between the doctrines!"

Out of interest would you be happy for the UDHR to be declared
void and all the associated equality/anti discrimination
legislation in this country revoked?

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.

You might object to the right to
freedom to change religion or belief. However if you abolish this
you also end up abolishing the right to teach and practice your
religion. So the right to attempt to convert someone to your
religion would also be lost.